Stop killing farmers, demand protesters

“We spend millions of rands on security instead of growing food for the nation”

By Tariro Washinyira
30 October 2017

Demonstrators against farm murders gathered near Green Point Stadium. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks

Thousands of people, many of them farmers, drove in convoy to Cape Town on Monday, eventually gathering at the Green Point stadium, to protest against farm murders. For much of the morning and afternoon the N1 into Cape Town moved at a snail’s pace.

“I want these killings to stop. I do not want any woman to suffer the way I did … My children are heartbroken,” said Marlene Conradie, widow of murdered farmer Joubert Conradie of Uitkyk farm in Klapmuts.

“We are ordinary people who grow grapes, peaches and olives,” she said. Marlene and her two children, Hannes (15) and Jane (11), were marching in Monday’s protest, titled “Genoeg is genoeg, enough is enough”.

AfriForum says: “Since 1 January 2017, at least 341 farm attacks have been committed, during which at least 70 people have been murdered. This means that during 2017 so far, there has already been more farm murders than the total amount of farm murders during 2016.”

According to Africa Check “police’s statistics differ” from those previously supplied by AfriForum. There are also other figures given by the Transvaal Agricultural Union. There are reasons for the differences based on methodology and also the definition of famer and farm or rural smallholding. It is extremely difficult to verify or determine how many farm owners have been killed on farms and also what the statistics are for farm workers living on farms.

Marlene Conradie and her 15 year old son Hannes console each other. Marlene’s husband Joubert Conradie was murdered on their farm in Klapmuts last week.

The protesters wore black regalia and held placards with: “Stop killing farmers”, “In memory of murdered farmers” and “No farmer no food”. GroundUp saw just one person with a small old South African flag on their T-shirt.

A dairy farmer and wheat producer, Thys Swart Swellendam of Grootvadersbosch Landgoed, told GroundUp: “We provide jobs for many farm workers and for each farmer that is killed, it means job losses and farms are ruined, and the secondary industry as well, because we produce raw materials for factories and other industries.”

He said farm workers are also attacked sometimes and their families are in danger. “We spent millions of rands just on security. That keeps us busy instead of growing food for the nation. With drought in the Western Cape, it is difficult because besides buying stock for animals we must also spend on security. Police, who should be providing security, are not doing that. Farmers are dependent on themselves and their neighbours.”

Some are however critical of the farmers. Colette Solomon, Director of Women on Farms Project (WFP) told GroundUp: “Women on farms do not feel safe from the farmers. They experience verbal, physical, sexual abuse and intimidation. Their tenure and housing rights are frequently violated but when they report to the police, police don’t take action. As a result most of them do not report abuse.”

Protesters hold hands and pray. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks

---

Published originally on GroundUp .

---

OUTRAGE IN SOUTH AFRICA: White Boy Drowned in Boiling Water While Mother Raped, Both Killed

 The following story is  a reminder about the horrific situation white people, especially farmers endure. Torture, rape, brutality and it has not stopped.  Farmers, white people remain oppressed in South Africa.

A 12-year-old white boy was drowned in a bath of boiling water by black robbers who raped his mother before killing both his parents in a violent house robbery.

Three blacks broke into the family’s home in Walkerville, Johannesburg, where they assaulted and shot dead Tony Viana, 53, and brutally raped and killed his wife, Geraldine. They then tied up and gagged the sobbing boy, Amaro, and pushed him into a bath of boiling hot water to drown him, ‘because he would be able to identify them’.

The family’s gardener, Patrick Petrus Radebe, 24, their domestic servant’s son, Sipho Mbele, 21, pleaded guilty to three charges of murder and one charge of rape each, reported The Telegraph. David Motaung, 20, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to robbery charges.

According to the accused, “we mutually raped Geraldine Viana.” Sipho Mbele raped her first while Petrus Radebe helped to restrain her by standing on her face. Afterwards Radebe raped her too. The white family’s dog apparently barked tremendously during the burglary. The animal was killed by disembowelment.

They then left the South African court and walked back their cells laughing, according to Beeld newspaper. As the death penalty was abolished in South Africa, they will probably get lengthy prison sentences but could be out on parole within five to ten years.

Now there have been 70.000+ murdered total South African Whites in the unreported genocide since the end of Apartheid. Is this the “saint” Nelson Mandela’s “rainbow nation”? Source

In August this year, the Democratic Alliance posted the following -

How many farm murders will be enough for government to take action?

The recent wave of farm murders across the country must see swift and effective action from the ANC government.

Yet our government has continuously failed to put into action already set up plans for rural safety that will mean that farm workers and farmers no longer have to be subjected to torture, murder or the fear of falling victim to brutal attacks.

The DA wishes to convey its condolences to the families of those who have been killed in these attacks.

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police, Mr Francois Beukman, has the power to make the Minister of Police, Fikile Mbalula, explain the continued failure to protect farming communities.

The DA will therefore write to request that Mr. Beukman summon Minister Mbalula to urgently explain and to commit to keeping South Africans safe by implementing the rural safety plans.

We will also conduct oversight visits to measure the extent to which police stations are equipped to deal with violence in rural communities.

The government needs to prioritise the safety of farming communities as workers and farmers have a right to be protected from violent attacks.

Our citizens in rural communities should not live in fear while their leaders turn a blind eye to farm attacks.  Source

 At the end of the day, the white minority remains oppressed and under constant attack.  Its time for world leaders to recognize the severity of the situation.

Read  - White lives matter

 

Latest budget underscores desperate state of South Africa's finances

Running out of options. Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba speaks after delivering his medium term budget.
REUTERS/Sumaya Hisham

South Africa’s 2017 medium-term budget policy statement represents a watershed moment in the post-apartheid economic and fiscal position. The best thing that can be said about it, is that it was at least frankly honest about the situation the country is facing. Arguably, there was no choice. The country has reached a situation where it’s no longer possible to spin the notion that public debt is under control.

In recent years, South Africa’s National Treasury has desperately, and creatively, tried to avoid making deep cuts to government expenditure, or imposing drastic revenue raising measures on citizens. It did this while still convincing investors and credit ratings agencies that public finances would stabilise.

But the 2017 medium term budget makes it clear that the project has essentially reached the end of the road. The notion that national debt will stabilise has now effectively had to be abandoned. South Africa’s latest finance minister, Malusi Gigaba, effectively gave up on the debt targets set out by Pravin Gordhan a year ago when he stated that net national debt as a percent of GDP should stabilise at 47.9% by 2019/20. Gigaba announced yesterday that this is expected to be 49.1% by the end of this fiscal year, increasing to 53.9% by 2019/20.

This is a clear sign that any attempt to stabilise debt has failed. A further ratings downgrade is now highly likely. And it will be worse than the last one which only affected foreign currency debt. Gigaba’s budget proposals are likely to lead to a downgrade of the country’s local denominated debt, which will increase government borrowing costs and could lead to significant capital outflows. Even without a downgrade the medium term budget reveals that debt service costs are expected to increase from 11% of total expenditure to 15% over the next few years.

Without higher revenue, that means less money to spend on government’s constitutional obligations and policy commitments. Unfortunately, the gloomy story is largely driven by a massive shortfall in revenue collection of R50.8 billion. So attempting to avoid these consequences through taxation is not looking like a feasible option.

In the current political environment, even the best case scenario is grim. In fact the country’s finances could worsen even further if the outcome of the governing party’s elective conference in December doesn’t see a return to good governance and responsible fiscal management.

Slippery slope since 2008

In the years since the global financial crisis that started in 2008, the government allowed expenditure to increase faster than growth and revenue. This was done with the hope of offsetting the short-term effects of the crisis and getting the country back onto a stable path of significant economic growth.

That led to a rapid increase in national debt relative to the size of the economy. But the failure of the economy to recover – due in part to political instability, bad decision making and poor governance – meant that this approach became unsustainable.

In the last few years successive national budgets have walked a tightrope in trying to contain the growth in debt. Planned spending has been reduced, while some tax rates have been increased and new tax instruments introduced. Amid all these manoeuvres, dramatic cuts to government expenditure, or wide-reaching increases in taxes, have been avoided.

Efforts to arrest fiscal decline were sabotaged by the removal of Gordhan in March this year. His removal meant that the institutional reputation of the finance ministry was compromised and, since it was this that had kept the country’s credit ratings intact despite increasing fiscal pressure, the country’s foreign denominated debt was downgraded to “junk” (sub-investment grade).

Storm clouds on the horizon

As if the picture wasn’t gloomy enough, numerous risks to the fiscal projections and proposals loom on the horizon. South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma continues to sit on the higher education funding report, causing further instability at universities. That leaves open the possibility that more money for university students may be needed at short notice.

And the finances of various state owned enterprises are teetering, requiring increasing government support to prop them up. Since Gigaba took over the ministry he has taken R5.2 billion from the R6 billion “contingency reserve” – which is meant to be used for emergencies, or other unforeseeable events, such as natural disasters – to prop-up South African Airways. This broke with commitments to fund bailouts using revenue from asset sales. The medium term budget cements this breach – funds used to prop up the airline will not be replaced with funds from asset sales.

But the most menacing risk is the power utility Eskom, which is propped up by R350 billion in debt guarantees, but faces rising infrastructure costs, stagnant electricity demand and successive corruption scandals linked to state capture. Due to the scale of the commitments to Eskom, it will be impossible to contain the negative consequences if its lenders start refusing to rollover its debt.

No political will

Reading between the lines of the medium term budget, there is evidently no political will at the highest levels – the president and his cabinet – to do the right thing. The only reduction in planned expenditure is a cut to the contingency reserve. But responding to rising debt by reducing money for future emergencies is emblematic of the reluctance to take braver decisions like cutting the bloated, pointless ministries seemingly introduced by Zuma to employ his political cronies and their associates.

South Africa’s public finances are in dangerous territory and very difficult decisions will have to be taken before the 2018 budget if the situation is going to be stabilised. This will require politicians and civil servants who are competent and dedicated to the public interest to make bold decisions. Without such leadership the resultant trajectory will undermine the ideals and objectives of the post-apartheid era for many years to come.

Seán Mfundza Muller, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Gigaba lays bare South Africa's economic woes: will it be enough to trigger change?

South African Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba kicked the can of change down the road during his medium term budget speech.
Reuters/Rogan Ward

Wittingly or unwittingly, South Africa’s Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba’s medium term budget policy statement places him – and champions of the market economy inside and outside the African National Congress – in a strong position and opens the way for real economic change. Whether the opportunity is taken is, of course, another matter.

Gigaba revealed that the government’s revenue shortfall is two thirds higher than expected, spending is growing, as is the deficit which will not, as promised, stabilise next financial year. And growth projections are down from a poor 1.3% to a negligible 0.7%.

The minister announced no new measures which are likely to turn the situation around and another set of ratings agency downgrades seem inevitable. This is partly because the agencies take their cue from domestic economists and business people, all of whom see a downgrade as inevitable. The only rational response is surely that the economy is in a downward spiral and that the minister cannot or will not do anything about it.

Perhaps. But there is another way of looking at the speech which sees many of these negatives as potential economic game changers.

One reason for seeing an opportunity for change is that the speech provides more than enough grounds to begin two of the tasks which must be confronted if the economy is to turn around in a sustainable way. It provides a powerful lever for everyone who wants to resist patronage projects. And the scale of the problem does send a signal to all economic actors that a sense of crisis – the acknowledgement that the economy must change course if it’s to grow and include more people – is needed and that negotiations to change the economy are essential.

Watershed moments?

Gigaba’s speech made it clear that the argument that money is simply not available is now an understatement. One casualty might be the nuclear power project on which President Jacob Zuma and his faction seem to have set their hearts. There have been suggestions that Zuma’s primary objective in his most recent cabinet reshuffle was to insert a loyal person into the energy portfolio so that he could make the nuclear deal happen.

Gigaba is now signalling that there is no money for the project and so the reshuffle’s purpose may have been undone.

And the argument for structural change, not mere tweaking, is much stronger now than before the speech. The harsh realities he explicitly set out mean that any finance minister who wanted to shut the door on patronage, begin cleaning up state owned enterprises and kick-starting talks with other key players, such as the private sector, is in a very powerful position. This could open the way for bargaining between all the economic interests on how to grow the economy and open it up to those who are excluded.

It does not mean that Gigaba will take the opportunity. The fact that he kicked the can of change down the road during his speech, proposing no new plans for change – and that he has already granted South African Airways a bailout – seem to show that his apparent desire to please everyone leaves him ill-equipped to take any of the steps suggested here.

But, if we assume – as many people who observe him do – that Gigaba’s chief goal is to advance his political career, the numbers he quoted today suggest that he is unlikely to do that unless he can show that he did something to change the realities he described. It’s possible that the minister knows that these realities won’t change unless he takes some decisive steps.

Stage set for trade-offs?

The speech offers no solutions but it can hardly be accused of ignoring or concealing the problem. On the contrary, Gigaba made a great deal of his refusal to “sugar coat” the problem. Insisting that South Africans must know how bad it is, he added that citizens needed to understand the “challenges” because only then

(will) we … know what to do … as well as what trade-offs must be made in the public interest.

That sounds very much like an attempt to set the stage for some unpopular decisions and for engaging with key economic actors on what trade offs should be made. Clearly, a minister who hopes to please as many people as possible is not going to initiate major changes without very solid backing – the speech may well have been an attempt to get that backing.

So Gigaba could be trying to set the stage for a process in which the awful state of the economy enables him to gain support from key economic actors to introduce the “trades off” he promised.

Of course, the minister may have no plans to use his leverage in this way. But, if so, the speech may have provided an important lever to those who would want him to do so. It clearly was an invitation to private economic interests to engage.

If businesses take Gigaba up on the offer, they may well find themselves in a more powerful position than they imagined, given the state of public finances and of the economy. They certainly have economic reality on their side and, since the minister is not zealously attached to either of the African National Congress factions, he may well be inclined to support them if the alternative seems likely to promise his political ruin.

The speech showed that the economy is in crisis – it needs to change direction if it’s to serve the country’s needs. Whatever the minister decides to do, its effect will depend on how those in society who have an interest in that change choose to react. The stakes are clearly too high for them to fold their hands and wait for the minister to act.

Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

South Africa's finance minister admits situation is grave: but offers no solutions

South Africa’s Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba has been forthright in recognising the crises facing the country.
EPA/Stringer

The first mid-term budget delivered by South Africa’s newish Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba was always likely to be judged largely on three issues: whether he was able to inspire confidence, what the government plans to do with the crises at the various state owned enterprises and whether he would pronounce definitively on its commitment to firming up a nuclear deal with Russia.

Whatever else Gigaba said was likely to be regarded as extra.

On balance, he did reasonably well on the confidence issue. He spoke clearly and with assurance, even with authority. To be sure, he delivered a lot of flannel. He reminded South Africans of the promises of the National Development Plan and the government’s commitment to Vision 2030; he spoke about the iniquities of the maldistribution of wealth and inequality and the government’s commitment to redistribution; he deplored “the challenges” (that overused word) faced by state owned enterprises, the high level of concentration in the private sector and the need to make the economy more globally competitive. And he inevitably he hailed the urgent need for “radical socio-economic transformation”. Words, words, words, one might say.

Against that, Gigaba’s speech was forthright in recognising the immediate crises facing the country. While stressing the importance of economic growth, he indicated that growth was expected to fall to 0.7% per annum, down from a previous somewhat less miserable estimate of 1.3%.

He recognised that the budget deficit was expected to increase from 4.3% from 3.1%. And he conceded that with lower economic activity government revenue was going to fall: indeed, the consolidated government deficit would climb to 60% of GDP by 2022.

Against these grim statistics, he stressed the need for greater tax morality, expenditure cuts, greater efficiency in government’s supply chain management and increased vigour in fighting corruption in state owned enterprises. And he even managed to say all this without smirking.

While it was important that he made it clear that the government recognises the mess the economy is in, he was extraordinarily light on detail about how it intended to clear it up.

The ratings agencies will doubtless be pleased that Gigaba announced no hike in corporation tax. For its part the African National Congress and its alliance partners would have been equally pleased that he announced no rise in Value Added Tax, which would hit the poor hardest. By the same token, he left it unclear – save by vague commitments to cutting costs – how the increasing gap between revenue and expenditure is to be tackled.

Raiding the piggy bank

The biggest news in Gigaba’s speech was his announcement that the government intends to sell a portion of its shares in Telkom to enable a recapitalisation of South African Airways and the South African Post Office. Many would say that he was left with little choice. While he thanked the banks for not pulling the plug on the airline by not demanding repayment of their loans, his raiding of Telkom’s piggy bank was an acknowledgement that no-one else was going to risk their money.

He also addressed the crisis in state owned enterprises by highlighting governance issues. This included the appointment of new boards for the airline as well as the state broadcaster and the need for them to recruit efficient managers and to tighten up governance and accountability.

Fine words, but equally, this was no announcement of the government drawing back from its notion of state owned enterprises as key drivers of the “developmental state”. Their current crises had obscured much that they had achieved, he said, such as the development of a pool of competent state managers.

Many would say that it’s a pity that their competence is not more evident.

If Gigaba said just enough to indicate that the government intends to do something to address the problems faced by state owned enterprises, the most glaring gap in his speech was any firm indication of how to tackle the cesspit of corruption that the state power utility Eskom has become.

Far worse than that were his weasel words about any prospective nuclear deal.

Speculation is rife that President Jacob Zuma is determined to sign off a deal to build nuclear power stations with the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, as quickly as possible – a deal which many reckon would bankrupt the country. Yet Gigaba chose not to calm the market’s nerves but to remain as vague as possible. Very deliberately, he chose to repeat a previous statement by Zuma that the signing of any nuclear deal would take estimates of the potential supply and demand for energy into full consideration, and would only proceed on the basis of “affordability”. Nobody is likely to believe that.

No sign of a change in direction

So, what’s to be made of this first substantive effort by Gigaba? The good news is that he didn’t try and obscure the grim financial situation that the government is facing.

But the bad news is that despite the waffle about the need for “radical socio-economic transformation”, there was nothing in his speech to indicate that the government is considering a significant change in direction.

Yes, there was the commitment to selling Telkom shares, but that was merely akin to selling the family silver to keep the household finances afloat for a little bit longer. Apart from that, there was no real suggestion that the government will start doing things differently. And there was no indication about how it intends to close the steadily increasing deficit.

Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.